Joe Biden-Gaffes or something more

[BowlBrother85]

This really shouldn’t be so difficult to understand. Trump is not getting any sizable number black voters to vote for him in November, but that’s not even remotely the goal here. Trump’s odds of reelection increase greatly if black people to stay home on November 3rd, so the hope is that black denizens of Detroit/Milwaukee/Minneapolis/Philadelphia feel disillusioned enough with Biden to not show up at the polls.

I would agree with that, and I'm even impressed that you acknowledge that the goal of Republicans is to suppress the black vote. That is usually a difficult thing to admit to.

 

[37L1]

I would agree with that, and I'm even impressed that you acknowledge that the goal of Republicans is to suppress the black vote. That is usually a difficult thing to admit to.

But wouldn't being disillusioned with Biden being the nominee be the Democrats responsibility for suppressing the black vote?

I know, that "logic thing" keeps getting in your way.

 

[BowlBrother85]

But wouldn't being disillusioned with Biden being the nominee be the Democrats responsibility for suppressing the black vote?

I know, that "logic thing" keeps getting in your way.

Yes, but Republicans have been known to resort to more proactive measures. Purging voter registration rolls in predominantly black districts is one example. States such as Georgia and Ohio have enacted so-called "use it or lose it" laws, which strike voters from registration rolls if they have not participated in an election within a prescribed period of time. Statistics have shown that black voters are disproportionately being purged from rolls under such laws.

 

[VolStrom]

Yes, but Republicans have been known to resort to more proactive measures. Purging voter registration rolls in predominantly black districts is one example. States such as Georgia and Ohio have enacted so-called "use it or lose it" laws, which strike voters from registration rolls if they have not participated in an election within a prescribed period of time. Statistics have shown that black voters are disproportionately being purged from rolls under such laws.

I don't know if they still do or not, but Tennessee had a voter "use it or lose it" law also. I think if a person didn't vote in 2 consecutive presidential elections they were purged. I can't see how this discriminates against blacks as it didn't matter what race a person was.

 

[Rickyvol77]

I don't know if they still do or not, but Tennessee had a voter "use it or lose it" law also. I think if a person didn't vote in 2 consecutive presidential elections they were purged. I can't see how this discriminates against blacks as it didn't matter what race a person was.

Those laws aren’t racist. They applied to everyone who was a felon or didn’t vote in elections ever. That’s white, black, Asian, Hispanic.

 

[NashVol11]

Those laws aren’t racist. They applied to everyone who was a felon or didn’t vote in elections ever. That’s white, black, Asian, Hispanic.

I don’t know enough about those voter roll purges specifically, but a law can definitely “apply to everyone” by the letter and still be obviously targeted toward one specific group

 

[hog88]

Yes, but Republicans have been known to resort to more proactive measures. Purging voter registration rolls in predominantly black districts is one example. States such as Georgia and Ohio have enacted so-called "use it or lose it" laws, which strike voters from registration rolls if they have not participated in an election within a prescribed period of time. Statistics have shown that black voters are disproportionately being purged from rolls under such laws.

If they are voting then what the hell is the problem with purging the rolls?

 

[CABVOL]

Yes, but Republicans have been known to resort to more proactive measures. Purging voter registration rolls in predominantly black districts is one example. States such as Georgia and Ohio have enacted so-called "use it or lose it" laws, which strike voters from registration rolls if they have not participated in an election within a prescribed period of time. Statistics have shown that black voters are disproportionately being purged from rolls under such laws.

Then get out and vote. Problem solved.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Then get out and vote. Problem solved.

A person's past history of voting, should have no bearing on their eligibility to vote in the future. These so-called "use it or lose it" laws, are a transparent attempt by Republicans to combat "Get out the vote" campaigns by Democrats in predominantly black districts in either battleground states, or red states that Republicans can't afford to lose. Republicans are getting nervous that Georgia is turning into a battleground state. You can see it. Statewide elections in Georgia have been getting closer.

 

[BowlBrother85]

If they are voting then what the hell is the problem with purging the rolls?

It is a transparent form of voter suppression.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Those laws aren’t racist. They applied to everyone who was a felon or didn’t vote in elections ever. That’s white, black, Asian, Hispanic.

But in Georgia, and especially with Brian Kemp (the current governor) as the Secretary of State, those laws were selectively enforced. Basically, they were only enforced at all in predominantly black districts. This is voter suppression targeting blacks. Plain and simple.

 

[hog88]

It is a transparent form of voter suppression.

How? They weren’t voting.

 

[NorthDallas40]

A person's past history of voting, should have no bearing on their eligibility to vote in the future. These so-called "use it or lose it" laws, are a transparent attempt by Republicans to combat "Get out the vote" campaigns by Democrats in predominantly black districts in either battleground states, or red states that Republicans can't afford to lose. Republicans are getting nervous that Georgia is turning into a battleground state. You can see it. Statewide elections in Georgia have been getting closer.

And apparently their death shouldn’t either.

 

[BowlBrother85]

How? They weren’t voting.

Those laws have been selectively enforced. In Georgia, they were only purging rolls under a "use it or lose it" law in predominantly black districts... and just because a person goes 2 election cycles without voting, does not necessarily mean that they will never vote again. These laws are a transparent attempt by Republicans to combat voting campaigns in black districts being done by Democrats.

 

[Wireless1]

I don’t know enough about those voter roll purges specifically, but a law can definitely “apply to everyone” by the letter and still be obviously targeted toward one specific group

Yes it would apply to an apathetic group. There is at a minimum an election every 2 years for you local representative, and you choose to set that out 4 times? To me that means you don’t care. Purging voter rolls has more to do with the costs of maintaining an accurate role.

 

[Wireless1]

Those laws have been selectively enforced. In Georgia, they were only purging rolls under a "use it or lose it" law in predominantly black districts... and just because a person goes 2 election cycles without voting, does not necessarily mean that they will never vote again. These laws are a transparent attempt by Republicans to combat voting campaigns in black districts being done by Democrats.

Proof? The roles are purged locally so the party in charge of that district would be the ones doing so

 

[BowlBrother85]

Yes it would apply to an apathetic group. There is at a minimum an election every 2 years for you local representative, and you choose to set that out 4 times? To me that means you don’t care. Purging voter rolls has more to do with the costs of maintaining an accurate role.

BS... if those purges are only being performed in predominantly black districts, as was the case in Georgia, with Brian Kemp as the Secretary of State? Then it can be reasonably concluded that suppressing the black vote was the objective from the start.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Proof? The roles are purged locally so the party in charge of that district would be the ones doing so

That is not true.

Google : "How a massive voter purge in Georgia affected the 2018 election -APM Reports".

Or you can also Google : "GOP candidate improperly purged 340,000 from Georgia voter polls, investigation claims - The Guardian".

Or you can Google : "6 Takeaways from Georgia's "use it or lose it" investigation - NPR".

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

That is not true.

Google : "How a massive voter purge in Georgia affected the 2018 election -APM Reports".

Or you can also Google : "GOP candidate improperly purged 340,000 from Georgia voter polls, investigation claims - The Guardian".

Or you can Google : "6 Takeaways from Georgia's "use it or lose it" investigation - NPR".

Yeah but that’s fake news.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Yeah but that’s fake news.

When a candidate in the election also gets to be the one to decide who gets to vote... that seems like a fail proof system. Brian Kemp had it pretty good.

 

[DC_Vol]

Yes it would apply to an apathetic group. There is at a minimum an election every 2 years for you local representative, and you choose to set that out 4 times? To me that means you don’t care. Purging voter rolls has more to do with the costs of maintaining an accurate role.

Seems like a Voter ID law would be the right solution to this problem.

 

[hog88]

Those laws have been selectively enforced. In Georgia, they were only purging rolls under a "use it or lose it" law in predominantly black districts... and just because a person goes 2 election cycles without voting, does not necessarily mean that they will never vote again. These laws are a transparent attempt by Republicans to combat voting campaigns in black districts being done by Democrats.

IMO voter rolls are not purged often and widespread enough.

 

[KB5252]

They both suck. This election is somehow worse than 2016.

I don't think it's worse actually, it's the same damn caliber of establishment vs outsider. I don't like the choices either.

 

[BowlBrother85]

IMO voter rolls are not purged often and widespread enough.

Brian Kemp would agree. In my opinion, no election is a legitimate one when you have one of the candidate's (Kemp) also serving as the overseer of voter purging rolls. It was an obvious conflict of interest and Kemp exploited it.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Seems like a Voter ID law would be the right solution to this problem.

Seems like not allowing one of the candidates on the ballot to also have the duty of purging voter rolls, would also be an appropriate step. That was outrageous that he did not recuse himself.